NO FACT ILLUSTRATES more vividly how fragmented South Carolina’s local educational system remains than this simple one — our geographically small, 46-county state is home to 85 local school districts. And that is an improvement. As recently as 1991, when The State examined the ways South Carolina’s governmental structure holds its people back in the original “Power Failure” series, there were 91 school districts. Yet today, there is still no real movement toward better ordering the patchwork of school district structures, sizes and funding methods.

A bill or two is introduced each session to address this; the measures are ignored. In South Carolina, only 29 local school districts are countywide. That makes the most sense. In the other counties, the number of school districts ranges from two to the inexcusable number of seven. Think of it: a single county wasting money on six entirely unnecessary administrative structures.

Public accountability is further complicated by the varying ways school districts get their local funding. Twenty-three local boards have the authority to raise property taxes as they wish. Some have millage caps, which may only be exceeded by such methods as local referendum or approval by the county council or local legislative delegation. Twenty districts operate under the most sensible approach, with their budgets set by the local county council. That allows council members to weigh all the needs of a community, set local tax rates appropriately and allocate those resources. If they fail to set the right priorities, they are completely accountable to local taxpayers.

The structure for implementing the public will regarding education is just as fragmented on the state level. In 2002, voters elected both Gov. Mark Sanford and Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum. Gov. Sanford is pushing a reckless plan to undermine accountability by diverting tax dollars to private schools. Ms. Tenenbaum would restore state education funding to its legally mandated levels and fully supports the reforms of the 1998 Education Accountability Act.

Ms. Tenenbaum’s approach is the only one based in reality. Yet, Mr. Sanford may never be fully judged by the voters on his approach, since public schools do not come under his official purview. Governors should have to run with a real education platform that they have the legal authority to implement — and be accountable to the voters for it. They should have the authority to appoint a state education superintendent to oversee what must always be the state’s most important priority.

In 1991, we celebrated progress on another lingering roadblock to our state’s educational achievement — the establishment of a mechanism to ensure equity in education funding. The 1977 Education Finance Act offered great promise by guaranteeing a minimum amount of money to be spent on every student in South Carolina, no matter where he or she lived. The state defined a minimally acceptable educational program and helped districts pay for it. Districts with low tax bases received more help from the state. To prevent this reform from becoming a local tax break, lawmakers required districts to maintain their previous level of services.

In the past decade, however, the EFA has come under all-out assault by state lawmakers. They change the legal funding requirements at will. When they find new funds for schools, they often distribute them outside the equity formula. These moves and state budget cuts have devastated poorer districts, which can’t make up the shortfall because of their meager local tax bases.

Lawmakers have thus worsened the gap between haves and have-nots. Meanwhile, they have done virtually nothing to ease the most glaring flaws in education governance, flaws that make it hard for voters to know who is in charge. The equity funding issue has been complicated by tight financial times, but could be eased if lawmakers vowed each year to place our public schools first in their spending priorities. And overhaul of the governing structure would provide financial benefits, aside from making the system more accountable to voters. Changing that structure to one that would help drag South Carolina out of its historic rut requires only that state leaders have the will to do so.

Wednesday: How fiefdoms fragment and dilute South Carolina’s system of higher education. Read the whole series thus far, and related items, at http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/10646771.htm.